Three years ago, the Girl Effect sprang into being for one purpose: To get powerful people to talk about girls. It totally worked, and “The Girl Effect on Development” was a huge success at the 2009 World Economic Forum. For the first time, world leaders, business leaders, and the smartest and richest people in the world were talking about this untapped resource. But something else happened along the way: the thing called the Girl Effect was having an effect of its own. It engaged people, inspired people, made them cry, and made them mad. It made them want to do something like write books, give money, or sock ignorance in the mouth.
And who doesn’t want to sock ignorance in the mouth?
The Girl Effect is a movement. It’s about the unique and indisputable potential of adolescent girls to end poverty for themselves and the world. It was created by people at the Nike Foundation, the NoVo Foundation, the United Nations Foundation and the Coalition for Adolescent Girls, but it's about you using your voice, your talents, and your community to help girls help themselves—and, as a result, everybody else. It’s about giving you the tools and the network you need to spread the word about what girls can do and, with a little elbow grease, change the world.
The math is simple: Girls + Girl Champions = Something Way Bigger Than All Of Us. That’s why we exist. That’s our whole schtick: to advance the Girl Effect. There are 250 million adolescent girls living in poverty today. By 2030, we want 50 million of them out. Nothing less than 50 million girl effects.

They also answer: "Why Girls, Why not Boys Too? Isn't that Sexist?"

We started out with a problem that needed solving: Poverty. We did a ton of thinking and researching and talking to smart people. We came up with a quite surprising answer: Girls. Girls? Really? Yup. Girls.
If it had turned out that rubber bands could cure poverty, we would have started the Rubber Band Effect.
It has been shown that an educated girl will invest 90% of her future income in her family, compared to 35% for a boy. Yet 250 million adolescent girls live in poverty and are more likely than boys to be uneducated, married at a young age, and exposed to HIV/AIDS. Today, less than two cents of every international development dollar go to girls, the very people who could do the most to end poverty. As long as girls remain invisible, the world misses out on a tremendous opportunity for change.
The Girl Effect exists to help everyone. And everyone includes boys. Indeed, better lives for girls mean better lives for everyone in their communities, including their brothers, fathers, future husbands and future sons. When you improve a girl’s life through education, health, safety, and opportunity, these changes have a positive ripple effect. As an educated mother, an active, productive citizen and a prepared employee, she is the most influential force in her community to break the cycle of poverty.

Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.Robot Fusion
"As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
"[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
"[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

I think it is sadly probably true. Very few men are prosocial because life encourages us not to be in many instances. I had a great idea for popularizing physics by selling an I <3 math/physics shirt to young women. It's interesting how so many movements use this strategy, most notably PETA, but also the nutritional/health and environmental movements.

For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

I dont know, I've known too many neglectful or abusive mothers, hell, in the UK there used to be a complete category of neglect, ie maternal deprivation, to be too confident about something like this. Maybe it will work out differently to the UK experience but here there is not hard and fast gender divide like what is reported in this piece here.

I also know that there are those who for quite different paternalistic and even possibly chauvinistic reasons would support the redistribution of wealth towards females. The charge of simple sexism is just simple.

Also I would say that the majority of neglectful mothers do come on the radar of social services because they're kids fathers are absent or dead beats, sometimes there's multiple fathers and confusion about paternity too, what I'm meaning to say is that its often the case that both parents are bad if the parents are the problem and investing in themselves rather than their families or households.

Provided you accept redistribution per se, I've always thought that this was the $64,000 dollar question, how, to who, why.